Thursday, February 4, 2010

Coyne: Evolutionary Arguments Not Theological

Evolutionists agree that their theory is a fact, every bit as much as gravity is a fact. It is not difficult to find proofs for this claim in the evolution literature. On the Internet, in magazine articles, in popular books, and in textbooks, proofs of the fact of evolution are common. In fact they date back to the beginning of modern science (or even to antiquity if one cares to take it that far). And these proofs are perfectly logical—there is nothing wrong with their reasoning. But a proof contains going-in assumptions, or axioms, and evolution’s axioms are metaphysical. That is, evolution incorporates axioms that do not come from science; rather, they drive the science.

Here’s an example. It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. But does it really look like a divine plan? Darwin argued it most certainly did not:

The several subordinate groups in any class cannot be ranked in a single file, but seem clustered round points, and these round other points, and so on in almost endless cycles. If species had been independently created, no explanation would have been possible of this kind of classification.

This argument about divine patterns did not begin with Darwin. It has complex theological roots, and today it continues as one of evolution’s many metaphysical axioms. Fifty years ago evolutionist George Carter explained that “If species are separately created there is no reason why they should be created in large groups of fundamentally similar structure.”

Niles Eldredge agrees that the pattern defies creationism and design:

Could the single artisan, who has no one but himself from whom to steal designs, possibly be the explanation for why the Creator fashioned life in a hierarchical fashion—why, for example, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and birds all share the same limb structure?

Likewise Jerry Coyne explains that the appearance of species through time is “far from random” and “no theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, can explain these patterns.” [29] And why are species so similar? “There is no reason,” explains Coyne, “why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones.” [54]

Of course this claim about how the species would be designed does not come from science. Nor do the many other metaphysical claims that, over and over, prove evolution.

For instance, another common metaphysical mandate is that god or a designer would never draw up inefficient designs. A favorite example is the recurrent laryngeal nerve which, Coyne explains,

makes no sense under the idea of special creation ... No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections …

In fact evolution is drenched in metaphysics. From its early formulations in the Enlightenment years, to Darwin, to today’s refinements, evolution relies on non scientific assumptions. The “fact” of evolution has never been demonstrated without appeal to ultimate truths which are far beyond the halls of science.

Is this enough for us to convict evolution? Actually no, metaphysics is no sin. There’s certainly nothing wrong with holding religious beliefs. And is there anything wrong with viewing the world through the spectacles of one’s beliefs?

Indeed, who says there is anything wrong with allowing one’s beliefs to influence science? Well, in fact evolutionists say this, and herein lies the rub. The problem is not that evolution is a metaphysical theory or that evolutionists promote their metaphysical views. The problem is that evolutionists criticize others for precisely what they do. They even deny what they do. As Jerry Coyne explains, our metaphysics are really not metaphysics at all:

the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument, but a scientific one. The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big detour around the aorta before attaching to the larynx is perfectly understandable by evolution (the nerve and artery used to line up, but the artery evolved backwards, constraining the nerve to move with it), but makes no sense under the idea of special creation — unless, that is, you believe that the creator designed things to make them look as if they evolved. No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections, but they all, as Dobzhansky said, “make sense in the light of evolution.”

Should we laugh or cry? According to Coyne the design “makes no sense under the idea of special creation" and this "is not a theological argument, but a scientific one.” Coyne’s misrepresentations and sophistry are astonishing. You can read more about this here. The problem is not that evolutionists are metaphysicians—the problem is that they are in denial, and in the process make a mockery of science. Religion drives science and it matters.

"...It would have been more efficient for the nerve to detour around the aorta, breaking and then re-forming itself on a more direct course, but natural selection couldn’t manage that, for severing and rejoining a nerve is a step that reduces fitness. To keep up with the backward evolution of the aorta, the laryngeal nerve had to become long and recurrent."...

How does Coyone know that "severing and rejoining a nerve reduces fitness"? Especially during ontogenesis? Sounds like a premature claim to me.

Let's assume for a moment that there was a Designer and a design process invoked that is largely responsible for the origination and development of species.

Is it then not permissable to comment on that design? Given that humans have been active in design for some considerable time, we can at least make some objective statements about the quality of the design that we observe, and even postulate the design process used. Sure, we are assessing this design purely from a human perspective. But nevertheless it is curious isn't it that this Designer does seem to have created what we would consider sub-optimal designs - at the very least it is hard to ascertain why some of those design choices were made. (It's even more puzzling if we posit that the Designer is the Judeo-Christian God, who is supposedly Perfect).

Would you not agree Dr. Hunter that this is a legitimate line of enquiry?

Cornelius said: "Of course. In fact I affirmed that in the very post you are commenting on."

But isn't Coyne engaging in this very line of enquiry? What's the difference?

I could see it being a problem if Coyne, and others like him, rely on these arguments as some kind of proof for evolution. Rather (and given that he has written a popular book), he is simply addressing ID and creationist objections to evolution.

Dr. Hunter said: "Yes, but he is in denial about it. Evolutionists make metaphysical claims, and then deny it."

What exactly is the metaphysical claim being made here? Isn't Coyne just pointing out that the design hypothesis has issues and inconsistencies? And in what sense are you using the term "metaphysics" - I found at least two definitions:

1 A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology 2 Abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience

"What exactly is the metaphysical claim being made here? Isn't Coyne just pointing out that the design hypothesis has issues and inconsistencies?"

Yes, but the issues and inconsistencies are with Coyne's and the evolutionist's beliefs. This is what proves evolution to be a fact.

Evolutionists have for centuries made metaphysical claims. They are at the core of evolutionary thought. As I pointed out, Linnaeus had no difficulty with the pattern. Darwin *rejected* the Linnaean view that the pattern was of divine design. Darwin was not pointing out that the science refuted the pattern. Darwin was in agreement that there exists such a pattern. The disagreement was over the metaphysics, not the science. The science was common ground. That should be clear.

The same could be said for the range of other evolutionary claims. For instance, Coyne's claim that the recurrent laryngeal nerve refutes design and creationism. Everyone agrees on the anatomy, that's not in question.

Evolutionists believe that such examples make design and creationism untenable, so evolution, in one form or another, must be true.

================And in what sense are you using the term "metaphysics" - I found at least two definitions:

1 A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology2 Abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience

Which is the usage you are utilising?================

#2. Another way to think of it is: that which precedes (or is above) the science.

Dr. Hunter: "Evolutionists believe that such examples make design and creationism untenable, so evolution, in one form or another, must be true."

Well, I don't know about being untenable, but I think it is fair to say these examples are at the very least problematic for ID and creationism. At least by human standards,these examples do appear to be convuluted and sub-optimal. I know that some get around this by explaining that human design standards are not an appropriate reference - or that there indeed by some less obvious reasons why such a design was chosen. Some have even offered ideas that "The Fall" is responsible for distorting the Designer's original (and perfect) plans. Of course these kinds of explanations have a danger of becoming "just so" stories themselves.

I can certainly appreciate then why Coyne and others suggest that these examples do in fact make more sense if another model is chosen. I don't think then it's a question of evolution being "true" but which model (based on what we know now) overall provides the better explanation.

I'm not saying these examples necessarily falsify a design model, but I do think they offer significant challenges, and I'm not sure there are many good answers out there yet. Perhaps that's where IDers and others should direct their research?

I cannot understand this notion you have that the theory of evolution is built on criticism of Creationism/ID.

You seem to believe that scientists say 'Look at this interesting biological feature. I don't think God would have built anything to look like that. There must be some other explanation. It must be evolution then'.

If this truly is what you think then you are so far from right you couldn't poke it with a bargepole.

People do not claim evidence supports evolution BY DEFAULT simply because they don't think it looks divinely designed.

The theory of evolution predicts a very specific (and mathematically unlikely) pattern of fossils and genetics which we would find if the theory was true. And whenever we do look we generally do actively find fossils and genetic data fitting the pattern the theory of evolution demands.

THIS is the evidence the theory of evolution is built on, and it is the reason people call it a fact.

The comments you have cited above are objections to ID/Creationism. But they are not in and of themselves the observations that evolution is based on. Where you got this wacky idea, I just don't know.

"evolution’s axioms are metaphysical."

Wrong. Methodological naturalism is not an active position of religion any more than 'bald' is a hair colour, or 'off' is a TV channel.

And even if it was, it is unjust to level this accusation at the theory of evolution alone, and flatly inaccurate to say it "do[es] not come from science."

I think you would take it as a triumph to hear 'evolutionists' say "features such as the laryngeal nerve are not definite proof against a divine designer". But such triumph would only confirm your misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution says and how it operates.

Yes, there is not a single piece of evidence which PROVES that there is no Intelligent Designer. There has never been a feature discovered which would be IMPOSSIBLE for a God to magic into existence with one snap of his mighty fingers.

But objections to ID have never been based on such non-existent evidence.

They are based around the total lack of evidence which SUPPORTS ID. And to understand this, you really need to take on board the fact that ID makes no predictions.

Say we discover a particular animal species for the first time. It has recently died though, and we decide to dissect it. Before we do, we see it has nipples on its underside. This marks it out as strictly mammalian.

As evolutionists we can therefore make other predictions - namely all the features common to mammals which developed before mammary glands will be present in the creature - for example, the arrangement of bones in the forearm. All mammals share the same arrangement of these bones because the arrangement was set by an ancestor which lived longer ago than the common ancestor of mammals with gave them mammary gland (and, in most cases, nipples).

Now bear in mind we (as evolutionists) are predicting a very specific thing here. We are predicting to find a very specific pattern which we would have no reason to expect and would be mathematically unlikely if evolution was NOT true.

So we open up the animal. And if we find that arrangement of bones in this animal too, then this is POSITIVE EVIDENCE in support of evolution.

ID on the other hand, predicts no state of affairs over another. What could we predict about the internal anatomy of our mystery mammal in light of ID? Nothing at all. We could only say that whatever features we find inside may (or may not) have been divinely designed. Not a lot actually work with there then.

ID does not predict any particular arrangement of bones. It does not necessarily predict any bones at all. The animal's legs could be filled with sawdust for all ID predicts.

===The theory of evolution predicts a very specific (and mathematically unlikely) pattern of fossils and genetics which we would find if the theory was true. And whenever we do look we generally do actively find fossils and genetic data fitting the pattern the theory of evolution demands.

THIS is the evidence the theory of evolution is built on, and it is the reason people call it a fact.===

I see, so they're affirming the consequent (as well as having a confirmation bias).

[from your link]Affirming the consequent - "This fallacy states that if P implies Q, then Q implies P. For instance, if a theory predicts that it will rain next Tuesday, that does not mean that if it rains on Tuesday the theory is true. But this is precisely the logic of evolution. If evolution is true then we expect fossil sequences and genetic similarities to fall into the expected evolutionary patterns. Evolutionists such as Carroll and Myers have found such patterns in the fossil and molecular data and claim, as above, that they prove evolution to be true."

No, not at all. such would be the case if these observations were considered PROOF. They are not. They are merely supporting evidence.

What we are doing with the prediction about the mammal's leg is trying to falsify our theory of evolution. If the mammal does NOT have the specific arrangement of bones, then the theory is falsified. But if the mammal DOES have that arrangement of bones, that still does not PROVE the theory correct. It is merely a piece of evidence which supports the theory.

In short, it is supportive evidence for evolution. Just one more piece to add to an already almighty cache.

"...we can at least make some objective statements about the quality of the design that we observe,..."

The problem may be perceived as - now I am not supporting ID design arguments, which are btw. often sound - that both parties speak about design. But design to what? Design to function?Maybe there is also design to - beauty?

It is a darwinian mantra that "form follows function" (form - read design). There are almost uncountable forms in Nature and darwinists need to invent respective functions to explain every one of them. No wonder they invent often funny stories in which they even do not believe themselves - at least I suspect them.

You have indefinite combinations of colors on animal surfaces. This is obviously free invention and playfulness of life itself and only darwinists make ridiculous claims, that they are due "aposematism", "mimicry", "sexual selection", "natural selection"..

I am afraid many structures of animals are of such meaning and origins. They - using words of Adolf Portmann - just serve to self-represenation of species (horns etc...). Darwinists desperately needs to ascribe them function. They even dare to judge such structures according their functions (often invented) from the design point of view claiming "supranatural cannot create them".Old atheistic evergreen.

"Perhaps you don't, but evolutionists do. They're not suggesting there's a problem, their sure their is a problem. Just read the literature."

This is an absolute strawman argument. You characterize everyone who accepts evolution as a person who finds the idea of a divine creator 'untenable' and thus accepts evolution only by default.

Timcol62 is just saying these observations of 'bad design' are certainly problematic for the Creationist and ID theories, and so do I. There's two people who accept evolution ('evolutionists' as you call us) who break your ridiculous mold, and frankly if you genuinely look, I am sure you will find few people who actually fit the characature.

Please stop insisting that the theory of evolution is built on nothing more than the insistance that a divine creator is impossible! It is so, so far from the truth. And yet you insist on looking at the world through this absurd conviction. Please, please lay it aside for just one moment and consider that it just might possibly be wrong.

If we could find a theological explanation for the nested hiearchies, then that would eliminate nested hierarchies as a proof od evolution. So nested hierarchies is a "science of the gaps" arguement. But people have told me that a "God of the gaps" arguement is a fallacy. So science of he gaps should be a fallacy as well.

"If we could find a theological explanation for the nested hiearchies, then that would eliminate nested hierarchies as a proof od evolution."

Not quite. The theory of evolution accounts for nested heirarchies. Therefore they are supporting evidence for it. If we drew up a different theory which also accounted for nested hierarchies, then the theory of evolution wouldn't suddenly stop accounting for them.

It would just cease to be the ONLY theory which accounts for them.

"So nested hierarchies is a "science of the gaps" arguement."

No, a God of the Gaps argument works by pointing to gaps in our knowledge and claiming they are evidence of whatever hypothesis you want to propose on the basis that 'nothing else has yet accounted for it'. That is not what is going on with nested hierarchies.

I found some interesting notes on this (admittedly from Wikipedia, but I believe still accurate and in line with other sources).

Firstly,

"Although affirming the consequent is an invalid inference, it is defended in some contexts as a type of abductive reasoning, sometimes under the name "inference to the best explanation". That is, in some cases, reasoners argue that the antecedent is the best explanation, given the truth of the consequent."

But here is the part that interested me in regard to evolution and ID:

"The strength of such reasoning as an inductive inference depends on the LIKELIHOOD OF ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, which shows that such reasoning is based on additional premises, not merely on affirming the consequent."

I think the question then - are there likely alternative hypotheses to evolution? And if so, what are they? If we truly want to say the evolution is falling into the affirming the consequent trap, then I think it is up to critics to offer those alternate (Q) hypotheses. Cornelius seems reluctant to do that and seems fixated in showing only why he thinks P does not follow from Q.

Curiously enough though ID can also be labelled as following the same fallacy

ID(P)predicts IC(Q)IC(Q) observed ID(P)is true

In this case of course there are indeed other alternative hypotheses that have been put forward for explaining IC(Q).

So as the Wikipedia article points out this particular fallacy may not be as applicable to scientific matters as first thought

I found some interesting notes on this (admittedly from Wikipedia, but I believe still accurate and in line with other sources).

Firstly,

"Although affirming the consequent is an invalid inference, it is defended in some contexts as a type of abductive reasoning, sometimes under the name "inference to the best explanation". That is, in some cases, reasoners argue that the antecedent is the best explanation, given the truth of the consequent."

But here is the part that interested me in regard to evolution and ID:

"The strength of such reasoning as an inductive inference depends on the LIKELIHOOD OF ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, which shows that such reasoning is based on additional premises, not merely on affirming the consequent."

==============================

I'm glad you found that interesting. You're getting warmer. See this, for example, which elaborates on this type of reasoning, which is so crucial in evolutionary thought:

The examples of metaphysics quoted by the author are not directly to do with evolution. They are rebuttals of creationism / intelligent design, and that's why they're on metaphysical ground.

First there is an argument that the patterns of related organism we see in nature (taxonomic groupings) would not result from creation / intelligent design because independent creation would mean discrete uniqueness for all. This is metaphysical, because it implies a knowledge of the creator's intentions, but it is not an argument for evolution. It's an argument that creationism fails to address an observation in nature.

Likewise, the citing of inefficiencies in animal physiology (e.g. laryngeal nerve) is an attack on the perfect designer idea of creationism. It requires metaphysics (the assumption that the creator would be logical, consistent and efficient) but it is not about the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary scientists may offer metaphysical arguments about why they think creationism is wrong but the theory of evolution does not require them.

"Of course it does. They run all through *Origins*, Hume, Kant, Wolf, Leibniz, Burnet, Malebranche, etc. They are required to motivate and justify evolution."

No, it really doesn't. This is a point I have been trying to make you see myself. You are just taking proponents of evolution, taking their rebuttals of Creationism, and then simply assuming/asserting that the theory of evolution is based on them.

It is not. What you are citing is evolutionary scientists offering responses to Cretionism - which is merely a related topic, not the basis for the theory of evolution!!

"No, it really doesn't. This is a point I have been trying to make you see myself. You are just taking proponents of evolution, taking their rebuttals of Creationism, and then simply assuming/asserting that the theory of evolution is based on them."

"No, I didn't say that. I think the problem here is that I've studied the evolution literature, and you obviously have not."

Huh? What?

Seriously, what on Earth did you mean when Jehannum_2000 said "Evolutionary scientists may offer metaphysical arguments about why they think creationism is wrong but the theory of evolution does not require them," and you replied "Of course it does"?

And yet when *I* say exactly the same thing, I am using a strawman argument?

What is the difference besides the fact that *I* am the one saying it? Or do you just automatically cry 'strawman argument' as a knee-jerk reaction whenever I post something?

And as an aside, I have read plenty of literature on the subject of evolution. And in the course of doing so I have never read anyone who has ideas remotely approaching yours...